SPLM and mass media: Promoting history on falsity
* Article
* Comments (0)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Elhag Paul
September 28, 2011 — The late John Garang De Mabior would have
certainly objected to being projected as a separatist by his widow
Rebecca Nyandeng, close relatives, the Dinka community and the SPLM in
their never ending quest to use his formidable life story to promote
him as the person who brought the independence to South Sudan and by
implication Dinka superiority.
Recently, having personally attended the shameful and shambolic
celebration of independence of the republic of South Sudan on 9 July
2011 in Juba, it was asphyxiating to witness the promotion of Garang
as the father of the nation and the hero of independence of South
Sudan. Large electronically refined coloured adverts on giant
billboards around Juba’s main streets showing pictures of Garang
walking into freedom with masses of followers. This story is a
fabricated lie and had Garang been alive, he certainly would have
objected to it.
Garang was very honest with his political beliefs. He made it
absolutely clear in various fora and writings that he was an avowed
unionist and this gained him respect in North Sudan, Arab world,
Africa and the west.
Garang in his book, titled ‘John Garang Speaks’ published in London in
1987 by KPI on pages 253 and 254 writes that:
“Our believe in the Sudanese Unity and territorial integrity is
axiomatic, that is, it is principled position. In our Manifesto
published 31 July 1983 we said in very unequivocal terms, and I quote,
It must be reiterated that the principle objective of the SPLM/SPLA is
not separation for the South. The South is an integral and inseparable
part of the Sudan. Africa has been fragmented sufficiently enough by
colonialism and neo-colonialism and its further fragmentation can only
be in the interest of her enemies. The separatist attitude that has
developed in the South since 1955 has caught the imagination of the
backward areas in Northern Sudan. Separatists Movements have already
emerged with guerrillas fighting in Western and Eastern Sudan. If left
unchecked these separatist Movements in the South, East, West coupled
with stubborn determination of repressive minority clique regime in
Khartoum to hang onto power at all costs will lead to the total
disintegration of the Sudan. The imminent, latent and impending
disintegration and fragmentation of the Sudan is what the SPLM/A aims
to stop by developing and implementing a consistent democratic
solution to both the nationality and religious questions within the
context of a United New Sudan. This was in 1983. Our position remains
the same.”
There you are. This is from the horse’s mouth. To refuse to believe it
is to make a fool of oneself.
Unity has always been the official policy of SPLM/A. It did not remain
in the files as a redundant or dormant policy but it was operationised
and put into practice with devastating consequences on the
separatists. Garang did not hesitate to kill any separatist who make
his case.
Among the prominent separatists who paid dearly with their lives were
Samuel Gai Tut and Akot Atem. The atmosphere in SPLM/A controlled
areas at the time was akin to that of the communists during Nimeiri’s
era in the Sudan. The words associated with secession were considered
treasonable and the consequences were dire for anyone who dared to
invoke them.
At the apex of Garang’s power towards the end of 1980s and beginning
1990 he had become so arrogant to the extent that he freely rubs salt
on the wounds of the separatists at every occasion the subject came
up. He haughtily proclaimed that ‘our first bullets were fired against
the separatists.’ Anybody doubting should research the barbaric murder
of Samuel Gai Tut and Akot Atem.
Peter Nyaba in his book, titled ‘The Politics of Liberation in South
Sudan: An Insider’s View’ published by Fountain Publishers in 1997 in
Kampala, Uganda on page 45 writes that after Kerubino’s forces
ambushed and murdered Gai Tut, he (Kerubino) refused ‘the burial of
the remains of Mr Samuel Gai Tut and to have his corpse given eighty
lashes daily until it decomposed.’ From this act alone, one can
imagine the raw emotions of hatred towards the separatists.
What kind of people are these who engage in such a wanton brutality to
the extent that they could not respect the dead? These dead brave
South Sudanese spoke and died for separation. Paradoxically, today,
the very people who killed them are enjoying the fruits of these
separatists’ foresight. So far, the SPLM has not shown any remorse or
decency to say sorry for their heinous acts and their divisive policy
of ‘New Sudan’. What a shame on SPLM/A.
In the House of Commons in UK, the then secretary for International
Development used to dismiss us the South Sudanese pressing for support
of secession. Her argument was that she had no misgiving about South
Sudanese aspiration to secede. Her own visits to the refugee camps in
Kenya, Uganda, Congo and the liberated areas in the Sudan proved to
her beyond doubt that the overwhelming majority of South Sudanese
wished to secede. However, what confused her was that also the
majority of South Sudanese supported SPLM/A and its objective of
united Sudan. Garang and SPLM, she asserted, were adamant about unity
and so it was up to us the South Sudanese to speak with one voice of
what we wanted. Because SPLM/A represented the majority of South
Sudanese she would promote unity of the Sudan. With this, the
separatists melted away like ‘Halawa Goton’. Or should I say with
tails in between legs. Such was the hullabaloo SPLM/A created.
With the above, Garang has abundantly made his case loud and clear.
What baffles people like me is the mendacity of Garang’s family and
the SPLM to assert forcefully that Garang is the father and champion
of South Sudan’s independence. How could this be when Garang put his
policy of unionism in practice by killing separatists? The fact is
that the separatist victims of Garang’s policy are well known and well
documented. These should be the true champions of South Sudan
independence and not Garang. To be fair to Garang, he was a
revolutionary who worked hard to transform the Sudan. He fought tooth
and nail to realise his objective but unfortunately this has not
materialised. May be the SPLM/A North in the Sudan will succeed to
implement the project of ‘New Sudan’ in that country. But it must be
emphasised: Garang was not a separatist. He was a unionist to his
core.
SPLM/A knows that to promote the lie that Garang is the hero of South
Sudan’s independence, it has to use all means available to it
regardless of the cost. Hence, it is now engaged in deploying the
arsenals of mass media in the form of advertisement, SSTV and the
radio service to bludgeon South Sudan psychologically. By bombarding
the South Sudanese masses on a daily basis with the lie, it will not
be before long when the young generation and the South Sudanese masses
succumb to the story of the masters resulting into ecstatic triumph of
the rulers in establishing themselves as the elites of South Sudanese
society.
This is on one front of the media war. On the other, the heavy use of
advertisement to promote Garang as the champion of South Sudan
independence although it is costing GOSS a fortune is not for nothing,
it has a strategic meaning. The purpose of advertisement is to create
fantasy and illusions in the mind of the watchers to promote craving
for the product – in this case, the story of the ‘hero’ of South
Sudan’s liberation. As this kind of product is not for purchase
pecuniarly, it is specifically designed to influence thoughts and the
mind to cultivate a hyperreal history of the struggle. The consumer
(you, me and others) if not critical minded and well informed
inevitably end up by believing what is shown on these giant billboards
as the truth and reality. Once this is achieved, history is distorted
and re-written in favour of the agents beautifully portrayed in the
adverts.
To buttress this fabricated story, SPLM has blended Kiir in. During
the independence celebration an interesting poster was displayed
around Juba. This poster presenting sergeant Kiir in long white
Jallabia sitting amongst a group of senior SPLA officers in military
uniform wearing red epaulets. The writing on the poster congratulated
sergeant Kiir for liberating the country. Like those posters of
Garang, it not only buttresses the fabricated story but elevates the
social status of these actors.
In this particular poster, Kiir’s dress indirectly appears to be
designed to present him as a benign, intelligent, and caring leader
protected by the might of SPLA. Here is one man the country cannot
afford to lose. Therefore, he must be protected like the queen ant.
Looking at this poster subliminally draws one attention to the well
circulated picture of Jesus in Jallabia carrying a lamb and followed
by sheep. Now Kiir is being presented as the caring saviour and
shepherd. While in reality, this is the man who was Garang’s
Rottweiler for 22 years. He supervised the despatch of hundreds of
innocent people to death. Kiir was responsible for the suffocating
poorly aerated prison containers. Do you remember the story of John
Nambu who was imprisoned in a container until he turned yellow before
his death due to lack of aeration? Nambu’s crime was only because he
hailed from the wrong ethnicity and wanted to join the SPLM. This was
only one horrible way of violating human rights in SPLM/A. The other
was the imprisonment of freedom fighters whose identities or ideas
were not entertained by the movement leaders in 10 meters deep holes
where the unfortunate prisoners occasionally were visited by all sorts
of deadly snakes and creatures. During the rainy season prisoners got
drowned in these prison holes. The master supervisor of these
horrendous joints was none other than Kiir himself. Please note that
most of these victims were separatists.
This benign supposedly caring leader has now been in power for six
years and what has he done for the people of South Sudan. Nothing at
all, apart from presiding over orgies of looting and massive
corruption. His lack of due diligence in running and protecting the
country is breathtaking. Yet SPLM is squandering massive resources on
media to promote him and re-write our history. Come to us here in Juba
and visit any office, you will not miss seeing Garang and Kiir looking
at you from hanging photographs strategically positioned.
The work of Jean Baudrillard (1929 – 2007), the French philosopher and
sociologist on the influence of mass media techniques and especially
of images on human beings shows that the use of images create its own
reality divorced from original facts or truth of what is being
represented. It paints its own reality constructed by values and
stories attached to the images displayed. This is politics at its most
psychologically dangerous, because it is not only the blatant
promotion of crude tribalism, but it is also the sowing of seeds of
discord for future conflict.
SPLM as an instrument of the masters of South Sudan is using massive
resource of the country to promote a big lie with implication for
history and future generations. The question to ask is: why is the
SPLM deploying expensive mass media techniques to promote a fabricated
story of one section of our community to distort our history? Whose
interest as a minister of information is Mr Barnaba Marial serving? Is
it serving South Sudan or a specific tribe? I leave the answers to you
to work it out for yourself. Why is the true story of the South Sudan
not being promoted since 1983? Why is there no reference to Oliver
Albino’s and other books on the Anya-Nya movement? Why is there no
mention to Aggrey Jaden hard work on separation of the south? Why this
obsessive promotion of our fresh distorted history which when truly
unpacked contains horror stories?
To understand the magnitude of the brutality, inhuman policies and
heinous acts of SPLM/A against humanity, it is absolutely necessary to
read the work of Garang, Peter Nyaba, Lam Akol, and reports prepared
by Human Rights bodies such as Africa Watch, Amnesty International and
so on. There is no justification for that kind of behaviour meted out
to the South Sudanese people other than from wanton criminals. Hence,
the necessity to pursue the establishment of Justice and
Reconciliation Commission, as in the case of Rwanda and South Africa
to bring Kiir and his cohorts to account. Bringing these people to
account might help us even to understand better Kiir’s current
presiding over the orgies of looting of public resources and
corruption by his group. For South Sudan to develop healthily, this
deep internal mental injury on its psyche must be addressed and
urgently. Glossing over it with mass media tricks is a surest way of
returning to mistakes done by the rulers of the Sudan at the time of
its independence in 1956.
The self determination which the South Sudanese had been fighting for
since 1947 was forced on SPLM/A by circumstances beyond its control.
It first entered into the vocabulary of SPLM/A following the 1991
failed Nasir coup led by Reik Machar, Lam Akol and John Koang. These
three, opportunistically calculated that since SPLM/A lost its support
base following the overthrow of the Mengistu Dirge regime in Ethiopia
the time was ripe to get rid of Garang. As we all know, they failed
and they continued to pursue their objective of ousting Garang through
alliance with NCP. But the benefit to South Sudan of their unpopular
act was to force SPLM/A to accept the principle of self determination,
especially after the talks in Abuja in early 1990s. This was further
advanced in the Khartoum agreement of 1997 with the same group.
However, paradoxically this time NCP blundered and included the
principle of self determination into the constitution of the Sudan.
When the peace talks under IGAD was first started in early 2000s, self
determination was not on the agenda. SPLM and Rev. John Danforth, the
American envoy to the talks were content with the idea of solving the
problem of the Sudan within a framework of a united country based on
the project of ‘New Sudan’ which would be multi-racial,
multi-religious, multi-cultural etc. It was only when the Diaspora in
Europe and North America rose up forcefully and brought pressure to
bear on the talks that the principle of self determination was then
included on the agenda. The first protocol on self determination was
won because NCP was cornered by the fact that self determination was
already catered for in the constitution of the Sudan. The rest was
history and we had our CPA of 2005.
The provision of the referendum in the CPA allowed each and everyone
of us to decide for ourselves what we wanted. We individually (through
the power of our votes) chose separation and thus liberated ourselves
from the Arabs. It has nothing to do with Garang liberating us to
qualify him as the father of the nation. This must be made clear to
avoid distortion of our history and construction of a false history.
The true separatists are those Garang fired his first bullets of
unionism at such as Samuel Gai Tut and Akot Atem.
In light of the above, the minister of Information should desist from
promoting one section of our society as being solely responsible for
the liberation of South Sudan with Garang as its founding father based
on falsity. For this does not bode well for the future.
Elhag Paul lives in South Sudan. He can be reached at [email protected]
The views expressed in the 'Comment and Analysisi>' section are solely
the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the
responsibility of the author not Sudan Tribune.
If you want to submit an opinion piece please email it to
[email protected]
Sudan Tribune reserves the right to edit articles before publication.
Please include your full name, relevant personal information and
political affiliations.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD
info" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
